Iran's Nuclear Program - Who Knows What?

The recent United States National Intelligence Estimate stated Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Interestingly, the current estimate contradicts the 2005 NIE, which stated Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Supposedly, Iran canceled its program in response to international pressure. However, Iran staked out an anti-Western agenda long ago; therefore, are we expected to believe Iran no longer intends to build a nuclear arsenal?

United States - The NIE assessed with high confidence that Iran suspended its pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003. Up until then, Iran was focused on procuring these weapons. However, the NIE then states:

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

Even if Iran did not restart its internal weapons program, nothing rules out their possible purchase, or trade, for a nuclear weapon. In all likelihood, if Iran did not buy a nuke, they probably would not use the publicly known enrichment locations such as Bushehr and Natanz. Back to the NIE:

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.

Immediately after the release of the NIE, Israel argued the United States' assessment was at least flawed. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen was dispatched to Tel Aviv to meet with senior Israeli military, intelligence, and political officials to discuss the differences in the two countries' opinion of Iran's nuclear intentions. So what does Israel know?

Israel - Although there is no "smoking gun" piece of Israeli intelligence to counter the NIE, the two countries differ on the interpretation of current indicators. Israel points out that if Iran truly dismantled its weapons program in 2003, why did it not proclaim this to the world? While Israel may or may not have additional intelligence on Iran's intentions, the Israelis certainly have legitimate reason to remain vigilant on Iran.

Russia - Nuclear fuel has been shipped to Iran. An additional 80 tons of nuclear fuel are to be delivered in the next two months. Russia has also stated an attack on Iran is an attack on Russia. The probable Russian business interest outweighs any concern over whether or not Iran actually produces nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians can always fall back on "they told us it was for peaceful purposes only!!"

Iran - Only the Iranians know what the status of their nuclear weapons program is. Since their nuclear energy program is moving forward, they announced they will build a second plant in Darkhovein. And, the delivery of nuclear fuel from Russia would not stop enrichment activity in Natanz.

What are we to make of this?

The moderate confidence of the NIE suggests there are many things we do not know. In one sense, Iran perceives the West to be wearing egg on its face because of the constant statements, prior to the NIE's release, that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The NIE recognizes that any Iranian nuclear weapon program would likely be secret, underground (literally and figuratively), and not near any currently known nuclear locations.

To paraphrase a European diplomat, who has experience as a foreign service officer in Tehran, "We know they lie about everything, the question is what do we about it?"

Iran may have abandoned its nuclear weapons program for its own use. But, Iran has already shown it will act through proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq insurgent groups) to accomplish its anti-West goals. Perhaps the Iranians have put aside their own ambitions for a nuclear arsenal in favor of packaging a nuclear product for proxy use. If so, the threat is as palpable as ever.

Israel and the Information War

Charlie, over at Op-For, correctly raises the grave importance of the information war should Israel take offensive action against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Although the IDF is prepared to begin operating in Gaza, the specter of the Summer 2006 war in Lebanon causes all involved to counsel prudence. Even though many believe Israel was the "loser" and Hezbollah "won," the view in the Middle East is quite different.

Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hasan Nasrallah, admitted in a television interview that if he had known the consequences of kidnapping Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, he would have never continued with the operation. The result of the kidnapping operation? Lebanon's infrastructure was severely damaged by the IDF air force. Thousands of Lebanese were driven from their homes. Most western nations realized, and admitted, Hezbollah is nothing more than an Iranian proxy. However, the ultimate blow was the greater Arab sentiment that Hezbollah made an enormous mistake and should never have engaged in the operation.

Today, FoxNews reports Hamas is preparing to repel a possible Israeli offensive into the Gaza Strip. One gunman is quoted as saying:

"The U.S. and Israel and other regional powers were generous enough to provide Fatah security with very good weapons, and now they are in our hands."

Assuming this comment is true, it begs the question of whether Fatah has handed over the weapons it received to Hamas. One could argue Hamas and Fatah are getting along better than what is reported in the media. Behind closed doors, Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshaal could have agreed to the following:

Abbas: Khaled, please continue to spout virulent anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric. If you do so, I will provide you with the weapons we received from the western powers.

Meshaal: Mahmoud, I would be honored to continue the war against the occupiers. Also, could you please send some of your newly-trained security personnel to us? We would like to compare the West's tactics with those we learned from the Al-Qods force.

Abbas: I would be delighted to do so.

Could this conversation have happened? Perhaps. Both Hamas and Fatah have the same goal, ridding the world of Israel. If they looked past their differences and began to work collaboratively, these groups could be on the verge of completely fooling the Western world. Abbas said all the right things at Annapolis to imply he's interested in a peaceful, two-state solution. Nevertheless, the two-state solution has been on the table for over a decade, but has never been acted upon.

The common thread between today's Hamas press release and the releases of Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 is the continued propaganda war against Israel. Lebanon still smarts from the destruction wrought by Hezbollah's ill-conceived plan to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Gaza has been reduced to a shantytown since Hamas seized power from Fatah. The closing of the Karni crossing, from Gaza to Israel, has resulted in Gaza businesses losing thousands in revenue because they are unable to trade goods in Israel.

In both of these cases, Israel has been reactive. Israel has responded to the brazen attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah. However, Israel has not been at the forefront of the information war in an effort to win popular, international support for its actions. Should Hamas step up its attacks, Israel will likely respond decisively. Therefore, before judging the severity of any Israeli reaction, one should take into account what brought the reaction in the first place.

Words That Annoy Me

Redeployment - Most recently used by any number of politicians who are calling for American troops to exit Iraq. A vocal Iraq critic, Representative John Murtha (D.-Pa.) stated: (from The Politico)

On Friday, Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, clarified his remarks. The surge, he said, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ which he added has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” Murtha said.

According to The Free Dictionary, redeployed means:

1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.

2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness.

Arguably, most politicians are probably referring to the first definition, as opposed to the second. If so, where do they propose to redeploy U.S. forces? Last I checked, there's no combat zone in the United States. Should U.S. forces be loaded on transports and sent to the Horn of Africa, or Afghanistan, or perhaps to support a notional peacekeeping operation in Pakistan? Accordingly, where does Representative Murtha intend on redeploying our forces?

He must be referring to the second definition of redeployment and intends to move our troops back to the U.S., so they can be more effective. But, use of this definition would make Representative Murtha a hypocrite because he opined the additional "surge" troops have been effective in fulfilling their mission.

[Representative Murtha] returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working” to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains “dysfunctional.”

Redeploying the troops to the United States would probably make them much less effective in helping to rebuild Iraq.

So what does redeployment actually mean? Probably, it's politically correct speech for withdrawal, exit, abdication, or heaven forbid - retreat.

Unfortunately, Representative Murtha, like many other vocal war critics, are missing the correct political points, which are the surge continues to work, Iraq is safer, businesses are reopening, citizens are returning, and sectarian violences continues to be reduced. Instead of redeploying our forces, how about we repeat the things that have brought so many rewards?

Support Sarkozy

The riots in France continue for a third day. The dangerous new element of these riots is the use of shotguns. Apparently, these riots began as a result of a car accident involving "minority teens" and French police. Allegedly, the police did not stop to assist the "minority teens". The police argue they stayed at the scene until EMS arrived. Who are we to believe?

Should we, as educated, critical thinking, internationally aware citizens subscribe to:

1. The idea that the French police would engage in hit-and-run tactics?
2. The idea that "disenfranchised immigrants" would react violently to a car accident in which they had absolutely no direct involvement?
3. Or, perhaps the idea that the latent, terrorist sympathies burst forth on the most slim of provocations?

Charlie, over at Op-For, raises some excellent points about the history and use of the term "urban guerrillas". I respond:

The French are in a tough position. The MSM is not going to name these upstarts appropriately. So, let's call them what they are - aspiring Muslim terrorists. They are not urban guerrillas, disenfranchised youths, out-of-work slackers, or persons upset over spilled milk. As our 42nd President might have said, "they're f**k*n terrorists, stupid."

I do believe Sarkozy is the right man to lead France into the next decade. He was the interior minister during the 2005 riots and rightly labeled the rioters "scum". He's already shown his mettle in facing down, and breaking, the powerful French transportation union. He will take this battle to the immigrant-terrorists in their neighborhoods. Plus, Sarkozy pledged to keep French forces in Afghanistan for as long as the U.S. is there.

The key issue for the United States is not to let the same thing happen here. The Los Angeles police recently scrapped a Muslim neighborhood mapping plan. But, were they on the right track?

More Guns, More Rights

As many are aware, the Nine on High (SCOTUS) have granted certiorari to review the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, which challenges the District’s outright ban on handguns. Heller argues the District’s ban violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms. This will be the first time the Court addresses the scope and contours of the Second Amendment. Many are curious as to whether the Court will actually spell out the parameters of the Amendment, thereby applying it to the States, or if a narrower ground will be found for the decision. Both sides of the gun control debate are anxiously watching to see which way the Court will go. In this case, the Court will probably make a concrete decision and overturn the District’s ban.

The Second Amendment states – “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Two points are important to the Court’s analysis of Heller. First, what does it mean for “the People to keep and bear arms”? The gun control lobby would have us believe this clause means the right of the States to outfit their militias (now National Guard) with weapons. Second, how would this right be “infringed”? A related question, and the greater issue, is whether the Court will extend the Amendment’s application to the States.

As to the first definition, the people’s right to “keep and bear arms” should be interpreted to mean every individual person possesses the right to own weapons and keep them at home. This phrase relates to a right of the “the People”. In other sections of the Constitution, “the People” has been interpreted to mean everyone, all of us, each individual in the United States. For comparison, the interpretations of “the People”, in the first and fourteenth amendments means individuals. In fact, in remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch pointed out this glaring inconsistency of Constitutional mis-interpretation.

The gun control lobby’s argument is the Second Amendment does not apply to the individual, but to the State. The lobby would have us all put our collective heads in the sand and ignore both the plain words of the Amendment, but also the entire document in which it was included. The Second Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights; the section of the Constitution inserted by the Framers to ensure the federal government would not become too powerful (tyrannical). In many cases, the Framers have been given due credit for knowing what they were doing and what words they were choosing when the Constitution was drafted. Therefore, the Amendment’s words should be given their basic, simple, common sense meaning and people (individuals) are Constitutionally permitted to own weapons and use them in defense of their persons.

The second issue, pertaining to how the right could be “infringed” will be slightly more difficult for the Court to resolve. Heller is not the perfect test case because it arises within the District of Columbia. Thus, the Court will have to work in the 50 states, if they decide to overturn DC’s ownership prohibition. However, this is not too great an obstacle to overcome. The more important issue is whether the Court will invalidate the laws of the States which outright prohibit weapon ownership.

The trend in the States has moved toward more ownership. In the past 20 years, the number of States completely restricting gun ownership has decreased from 15 to 2 (Illinois and Wisconsin). The number of “may issue,” where a State agency has discretion to issue an owner’s permit has decreased from 26 to 9. Most interesting is the number of States requiring the State administrative agency to issue ownership permits with a “shall issue” law. Over the past twenty years, the number of States changing to “shall issue” has increased from 8 to 37! Considering the trend across the Union, complete and thorough restriction on the right to own is headed the way of the white buffalo.

The change in State statutes will be reflected by the likely decision by the Court. Most likely, the conservative bloc (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) will vote to strike down DC’s prohibition and leave the regulation issue to the States. The liberal bloc (Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer) will probably vote to uphold DC’s law in an effort to stem the tide of gun ownership. While Kennedy is the “swing vote”, I suspect he will join the conservatives, and support the right of the States to regulate, but not prohibit, weapon ownership.

The upshot of the Court's decision is the people will again have the ability to determine how their own rights are affected. If Professor Balkin is correct, then the people will have their work cut out for them to prevent the Hillary-crats from disarming our country. The Founding Fathers inserted the right to "keep and bear arms" in order to prevent the State from engaging in tyranny nanny-ism. Should the Court strike down DC's prohibition, the People should ensure the next government does not quickly reverse the Court through legislation.

Krav Maga - First in a Long Series

Krav maga is the official self-defense system of the Israeli Defense Forces. The method is proven, battle tested, and one of the most effective personal self-defense systems available to the public.

No discussion of krav maga would be complete without a discussion of two people. First is the founder of krav maga, Imi (Sde-Or) Lichtenfield. The second is the Grandmaster of Israeli krav maga, Haim Gidon. This is the official, real-deal, not watered-down Israeli krav maga. If you're interested in learning the system, these are individuals with whom you want to trace your lineage.

Speaking of lineage, mine goes like this:

1. Imi (Sde-Or) Lichtenfeld
2. Grandmaster Haim Gidon
3. Senior Instructor Rick Blitstein
4. David Kahn
   
5. Me

I obtained my instructor certification this past summer in Netanya, Israel. While there, I had the privilege of training with some outstanding individuals (I will do profiles of them in the future).

The instructors course is thoroughly challenging. It's three glorious weeks in Haim's Playhouse where air conditioning is a rare luxury. We train approximately 7-10 hours a day, with a recuperative dip in the Mediterranean almost every evening. Next time I'm there, I promise to memorialize our daily hell...

In the meantime, if you're interested in learning krav maga make sure to ask the instructor two things:

1. What's your lineage?
2. When was the last time you trained in Israel?

The answers to these questions will tell you the quality of instruction you will receive.

Shalom v-yom tov.

Shout-Out

Thanks to my fellow airborne Marine, LtCol P for the promotion. I have greatly enjoyed the topics presented on Op-For and I will continue to comment there.

History Repeats

Currently, I'm watching Why We Fight World War II - A Prelude to War & the Nazis Strike, a 1940s era American propaganda movie, as part of the Marine Corps' Command & Staff Seminar. The movie was produced by both the Department of the Army and Hollywood (my how times have changed). The movie's main point? Simple - one way of life must survive, the USA's (and other freedom loving nations) or the Axis'.

What has struck me most are the parallels between how the Nazis, Italian fascists, and the Japanese operated then and how Islamic political and terrorist organizations are operating today. Throughout the movie, the Axis powers are shown to be advocating their way of life is not only the one, true way, but also, the way in which the whole world will eventually live under their rule. Unfortunately, the similarities between the occurrences of under 70 years ago are alive and well today.

For example, Italian women were honored and rewarded for giving birth to many sons. In comparison, the families of Palestinian suicide bombers are given state aid and numerous amounts of donations.

A second example is the political propaganda of the Axis powers. Each of those government's leaders made speech after speech about how the individual should put their trust in the state. The individual should give up thinking and criticizing the government and allow the state to think for them. Today, we see the same type of speeches in Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. This type of subjugation of the individual to the state is fascism, plain and simple.

The third example is no less shocking. The Japanese plan for its conquest was set out in the Tanaka Plan. The Tanaka Plan had several phases: 1) Conquest of Manchuria and then China; 2) Conquest of Southeast Asia; 3) Conquest of America's Pacific Islands; and 4) the Western United States. The efficacy of this plan is subject to extensive debate. However, the Japanese did execute a fair portion of it in an effort to assert their imperialistic goals.

Similarly, the stated goal of Al-Qaeda is to re-establish the caliphate of the 7th Century. They are not alone in this goal. In fact, a centerpiece of Muslim proselytizing is to convert the unbelievers to The Way.

The shocking thing is how little the free world is paying attention to the similarities between the Axis methods to those of today's Islamic terrorists. The ideology is similar - world domination. The methods are similar - subjugation of the individual to the state, or in this case, the religion. And, they both will use military action to achieve their goals. The minor difference is the Axis powers had the regular military at their disposal. The Islamists have successfully co-opted the general populace.

Wake up!!! Take notice of what is going on around us. Wake Up!!